Because the bill of rights refer to natural rights of individuals, The purpose of a constitution is to limit the power of government, de facto governments have unlimited power unless specified otherwise.
-
They were based on the English Bill of Rights and influenced by John locks ideas based on individuals freedoms and natural rights.
-
1. the right of petition,
2. an independent judiciary (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself),
3. freedom from taxation by royal (executive) prerogative, without agreement by Parliament (legislators),
4. freedom from a peace-time standing army,
5. freedom to bear arms for their defence, as allowed by law,
6. freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign,
7. freedom of speech in Parliament,
8. freedom from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail,
9. freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial.

More guns equals more shootings and deaths by gunshot. This is from the article you linked to:

"One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world’s other 35 wealthier nations. While this is literally true, it is irrelevant—except, perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern—but which the study fails to mention—is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent."

The question that I'd like the author is this article to consider is whether the various genocides of the 20th century, often perpetuated by government powers, would have happened if the people being killed were armed? Would I need special insight to know that people like me are being specifically targeted and killed?

And if we accept the logic of this question and the fact that millions of people might not have been killed, or at least been able to fight back rather than be slaughtered in the streets or in concentration camps, then we have to wonder why the author thinks the conditions of genocide won't ever occur in England or the United States?

Or to put it another way, what happens when the mentally unhinged take the reins of government? Or did the 20th century teach us nothing about the state's penchant for massacring millions? When we are engaging in a calculus of gun control, we need to remember that government is always going to have guns.

Left wing thinkers and statists are immune to logic and history. Fascism and communism are not extinct ideologies. Yet, so many people want the govt to be supremely empowered it's more tragic then these school shootings to be honest.

But thats exactly what socialist/liberals are striving for, a Utopia, where the government has absolute control and the media controls public thought.

I can tell you North Korea has 100% employment, when they build a road they don't use bulldozers, heavy machinery, pavers, that would be efficient and you would need a handful of people, why do that when you can have 100 people using shovels and keep employment at 100%

Strangely, I'm a left wing thinker. There's a rather large tradition of left libertarianism, libertarian socialism, anarchism, pick your label of choice. The problem with a lot of right wing thinkers, at least in the United States, is they seem to have forgotten about the conditions of working people under the free market capitalism they favor - you know, where workers were indentured servants working 18 hours days, buying from the company store, and being left for dead or in the poor house when they were no longer able to work.

I'm against big states and big business, because economies of scale and large organization tend to favor small elites. This is true of both government and the business world.

A person should be able to buy a single shot rifle at the age of 21 with all the appropriate checks and waiting period. Once that person has shown he can own that weapon for five years without incident he may own one handgun with a magazine limited to six bullets, the historic American six shooter of western lore. People of any age who have not owned a single shot rifle for the five years may not own any other type of gun. This approach should help tease out the crazies while their ( legal ) access to guns is still limited while respecting rights of homeowners and hunters to have a gun. The rest of us can rent at the firing range.

Here, for what it's worth, is my America-and-guns story. Arriving in this country from the UK, I could barely believe what I found in the local Walmart, near our holiday home in Garrett County, Maryland. I could buy a gun in Walmart any time I wanted; but I could not buy a bottle of wine! For that, I had to go to a liquor store. While I admire the inclination to temperance and the authorities’ commitment to the public good, I could not help but wonder what America would be if this balance were reversed. Even though many supermarkets in other counties of Maryland and other states of America do sell alcohol, the wide availability of guns is something that cannot but shock a new arrival. Unless, of course, one’s most recent point of reference is Mogadishu.
I’m not sure what to make of the rather gruesome name of this gun store near our Maryland home: Honeymooners Gun Shop reads the sign. Call me old-fashioned, but the notion is rather too gruesome for me.

I don't own guns and don't intend to...I'm a bit conflicted about the whole thing... But if you are looking at deaths from guns vs. deaths from alcohol, the numbers aren't even close with alcohol causing many times more deaths than guns. In fact, in the UK alcohol-related deaths are considered epidemic... Gun-related deaths are generally more gory and get more media attention, but not the root cause of the problem.

I'm technically a resident (being American by marriage). I didn't want to buy a gun - at Walmart or anywhere, but it's hard not to notice racks and racks of them for sale. Temperance is prized over and above disarmament.

I'm technically a resident (being American by marriage). I didn't want to buy a gun - at Walmart or anywhere, but it's hard not to notice racks and racks of them for sale. Temperance is prized over and above disarmament.

I'm technically a resident and American by marriage but I just don't know this country that well. I didn't want to buy a gun, there or anywhere else, but it's hard not to notice racks and racks of them for sale. Temperance is prized over and above disarmament.

Look you NRA nutjobs and self styled "protectors of freedom and republic". I've hunted and no one needs a 30 round mag for deer hunting. That size mag is for combat and killing people- simple fact. Only military and police should have those (spare me your sociopath crap about you need a 30 round mag to protect yourself form tyrnanny)
Same goes for pistols, only for cops. Long rifles ok, maximum 5 round mags. If you're concerned about home safety get a big dog, or a double barrel 12 gauge, it will clear a hallway just fine.

If you want to have access to "cool" guns so you can defend freedom, then be part of a "well ordered militia", we have one, it's call the U.S. Army or the Marines.

Why doesn't Lexington examine the cultures that pervade this issue? On the one hand, you have a centuries old culture in the United States where having arms is a Constitutional right. Even beyond the right, today in many states bearing arms remains a necessity to protect one's home and family from real and existing dangers. And, on the other hand, you have an evolving culture revolving around 54 million abortions since 1973 causing a complete generation of young people to be brought up to consider human life as disposable and cheap. Lexington might better serve his readers by insisting that all humans take responsibility for their actions in creating life and raising their children from conception to adulthood so that the offspring understands the value of life and the exercise of their rights including gun possession. Why does he worry about seeking ephemeral changes from Washington bureaucrats who care more about self-preservation and their next election than the rights of humanity? After all, thankfully, America is not Britain.

1. Your entire article is riddled with commas. Do you get paid per-comma?

2. Your argument has NOTHING to do with death-- only gun death. I would suspect that you wouldn't care about the tools of violence, only the fact that it is occurring. I would think that the man in in China who stabbed 22 people on the same day would answer the question as to what people would do if they didnt have guns.

3) Look up Kennesaw, GA, where people were mandated to own guns by law. Other cities of similar size in the area continued to grow in violent crime, while violent crime in Kennnesaw stopped. Completely.

4) Look up crime stats from DC, Chicago, Detroit, and NYC. When they banned handguns, crime rose. When the law was overturned, crime fell. Same cities, different gun laws, three different occasions. Now THAT is accurate measurement.

5) Look where the last 20 years of mass-shootings occur: nearly 95% of them happen in "Gun Free Zones".

You are correct, a man in China did stab 22 people in a school on the same day. Guess what brains eveyone of them survived. How many would have survived if he had a gun?

It is quite a claim you make that 'more guns = less violent crime' given that you live in a country awash with guns and which has by far (go on check no one else even comes close) the highest murder rate of any developed country on earth.

America will never change. Farmers tell me it takes a cow an average of 20 times hitting its head of an electric fence before it realises if it does it again it hurts. You do not catch on so quickly.

What I do know is that I live in a country with amongst the strictest gun laws on earth. There are as close to no guns in public ownership as it is possible to get. We have more or less zero gun crime. We have a murder rate a fraction of Americas. And, I will take my 12 year od son to school tomorrow knowing he will be completely safe. Can Americans say the same?

US
Firearm homicides per 100,000 population: 3.7
All homicides per 100,000 population: 5.5
UK
Firearm homicides per 100,000 population: 0.03
All homicides per 100,000 population: 1.2
The idea that banning guns results in murders not changing but being replaced by another weapon is just not true.
Then consider the issue of health and safety.
In 2009:
US
Accidental firearm deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
This is almost 3 accidental deaths for every three intentional deaths.
UK
Accidental firearm deaths per 100,000 population: 0.02
This is actually less than the amount of intentional deaths per 100,000 (0.03)

The last I'd heard, UK citizens have an 8 out of 100 chance of being the victim of violent crime. US citizens have only a 2 out of 100 chance. The UK, which prosecutes crime victims who physically defend themselves with ANY means (which is insane), also has 4 times the burglary rate of the US.

The prevalence of guns is a condition of Mutual Assured Destruction. I'll take the lower crime rates in the US, along with the higher murder rate. And if you stay out of certain ghetto neighborhoods, the crime rate in the US approaches that of Scandinavia. Idaho, a population of 1.9 million and armed to the teeth, has less than a 2 per 100,000 murder rate per annum. Idaho is overwhelmingly white, has little in the way of gangs or drug cartels. Maybe those Europe worshippers who wish to draw parallels should focus on the Famous Potato state?

Can you cite a source for your statement "The #1 weapon used in homicides in the USA? Baseball bats?" The Department of Justice figures for 2005 (the most recent year I see) shows this breakdown for weapons used in homicides:
handgun: 8,478
Other gun: 2,868
Knife: 2,147
Blunt object: 671
Other: 2,528

All blunt objects (including, we might assume, some weapons that are not baseball bats) account for only about 4% of homicides while guns are used in about 68% of all homicides.

Well, there live more people in Western Europe (over 400 million) than in the US, believe it or not.

I'll adress to your points now:

1. Can you give a source for that? When did it happen? In what kind of situation? Japan actually has a really lo crime rate, but of course you will never be able to completely eliminate crime, but it's the numbers and the regularity that make a difference.

2. Mexico is kind of bad example, it is in state of complete chaos right now. It is in the hands of those drug cartels, the police and government is corrupt. You can't compare those two countries.

3. Everyone in Switzerland is in the army, so they used to have weapons at home but they already changed that and now they have special depots for it. That already makes guns less available. Also, they don't see owning a private gun as a right, like americans do, it's only for military purposes.

Thank you so very much for your concern. It must be nice to live in such a secure environment. We, here in the United States are enjoying our many freedoms from the repressiveness of the UK and we thank GOD on a daily basis we were able to kick your arse’s both times when it really counted, even with those silly old single shot long guns. These days we are much better armed, just in case our own government gets a little full of itself, it's been known to happen you know. At any rate, you don't need to worry about us, especially where I live in Florida. There are 1,000,000 yeah, that's right 1 million concealed carry permits, and we will all take our kids to school tomorrow too.

Michael Andrews949, Baseball bats are the most used murder weapon? Did you just make that up? According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) in 2009 there were 16,799 homicides, and 11,493 of them were due to firearms. That’s over 68% of all homicides, which means that guns are the number 1 cause of murder in the U.S. -- NOT baseball bats!
You made some good points in your post. Don’t undermine your credibility with such blatantly false statements. Thank You.

Hyun.
You crazy man.
1. Yes - but not 27. If, like the name of this magazine suggests you paid attention to economics the statistics are out there. If we took the median numbers from these arguments where would we stand? Oh - once again - guns are very effective and designed to kill people - furthermore - your society shows all the signs that you are unable to bare arms without wanton killings. Accept that. And do something about it... WHAT? GUN LAWS? TYRANNY! Don't tread on me? Get a life and come into the 21st century where we created inventions like the internet and high speed travel. Killing people is our most obsolete ability - the one we have shared with animals - no one has the right to kill anyone.
2. Do you know where the guns come from?! Now your bringing up Americans addiction to drugs which is a multi billion dollar industry that you as a society cannot accept and do not regulate... like guns. As such illegal weapons and money flow across the border. Also - if you read widely like you purport you would know that this is changing - they are actually allowing gun ownership in Mexico now because USA has been unable to do anything to stop the drugs or guns. Truly frightening that they would have to take such measures.
3. Switzerland - half the population is the army - thus very high gun ownership - we went through this already mate.

Just out of curiosity - do you own a passport? Have you ever left your country?
I am well travelled and let me tell you something the shit you speak does not go down well anywhere. Period.

No question we Americans have a different set of values on guns and protection than you Europeans do. We also end up being the bulk of the global police force; a task that Europe is quick to criticize but reluctant to share.

Thank you, Everyone is so quick to say we are such a violent society and we are so wrong, but let their butt get in a sling and who you gonna call? Sure isn’t gonna be Ghost Busters. Can we borrow your Marines for a while? They all suddenly hate Americans, but they sure as hell love our money. I just wonder how much more they could possibly hate us if we were to cut off foreign aid and start using that money for our own citizens like we should be doing in the first place.

John - do you own a passport?
John - the boogyman does not exist. Your country gives foreign aid to countries it tries to have diplomatic relations with and or change - always with a guiding rule - what will we get out of it? On that note - umm - yeah - that's diplomacy buddy - every country gets up to that.

Thanks for being a hero dude - just what we need - and in case you didn't hear about a thing called the Vietnam war - or any of the wars you are in atm - they generally don't work out well for anyone and yeah people get angry at Americans like you, to be general, because you think you are helping or that you are somehow enlightened.

Also - 1 million concealed weapons - are you proud of that? That's really silly - I am glad you figured out how to give people gun licenses but you still cannot figure out a way for people to vote! Indeed accomplishment of sorts! HAH. Anyway - here lies the problem - you cannot say that you are the greatest nation on earth because the idea that, that actually exists is fallacy. Furthermore if it could be equated - you would need alot more motivated people who would never say such things as we are the greatest - you gotta do what you gotta do and let history judge. Mostly you gotta earn it. Massacre such as this remain when a portion of society rests on their old laurels.
Anyway - are you Christian? Did not god tell thee to love thy neighbour? Why would one want a gun then?

I have been pondering the same things today and the sentiment of gloom is one I also share. I am from Australia and after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 gun laws changed - because it was the sensible thing to do.
The correlation between guns and gun deaths is stupefyingly simply. I am sick of hearing every couple of months about a new massacre in the USA. People must unite and go after the status quo where the lofty laurels of gun ownership are accepted.

Furthermore - if you hear anyone telling you guns don't kill people, people kill people nonsense - tell them to shut up.
Yes in a straight forward way you are correct - but that is a distinction that would more aptly apply to flint riffles - not 30 clip riffles. Guns were made to kill things - ether animal or human - period.

This talk on blaming mental health? Yes - there are disturbed people out there... but once again...imagine if these individuals could only arm themselves with a knife - the possibility of such events as this tragic one would dramatically decrease. And yes - knives do not kill people - people kill people - here however the task with a knife would be practically impossible.

Hey thanks for raising that point I shall address it - also just saying Switzerland and hoping for a slam dunk is a little silly - I shall elaborate. Firstly we are talking about America - what 10,000+ gun deaths a year? What does Switzerland have to do with that?
Anyway -
This is true - but the riffles are given to all members of their military reserve - which is half the population. Furthermore Switzerland - is in the process of changing that law because accidental deaths occur ever year with said riffles and it is much more efficient to have a professional army.

America has not had an armed conflict on its own land for what a century or two? This law existed in Switzerland after something called world war 1 / 2 where invasion was a real issue. America and the 2 nd amendment has had it's time. I agree that it was a good law 200/300 years ago where tyranny was an issue but what are you defending yourself from? Why does America need the biggest military and 300 million guns?

Also if we are to talk about different nations - which this article is not really about why don't you think about Mexico? The gun laws in the states are so lax weapons flow over the border and guess what there are lots of gun deaths there.

So Hyun - I am curious why do you need your gun? Does it make you feel special?

Also - do you like defending guns when massacre like this are becoming a monthly special?

Violence is always symptom of societal conditions,
-
A country that is larger will naturally be more diverse have greater instances of extremism.
-
If we want to make an accurate comparison let us compare all of Europe to the US.

Holly cow! So with the Mexican stupid war against drugs there was a toll of 60,000 men in six years. And the US there are 10,000 + deaths a year, so in the last 6 years both countries more or less have the same absolute number of deaths (not as in percentage where US is at 9 and Mexico at 14, both terrible) but Lord Mexico is at WAR. I simply do not get how can you think that bearing a gun (specially assault weapons) will make you safer, when statistic is shouting at your face the contrary. With the US army I do not envisage any tyrant trying to invade US, just because you have guns in your house hahaha come on, the world does not have an armed conflict vs US in the US because if you try so the last word you will say is NUKE.

How many died in "peace loving" and "civilized" Europe under the rule of tyrannical governments that you left wing folks poo-poo as paranoia? Were the 30 million+ dead under Stalin, Hitler, et al purely figments of paranoia imagination or were they real people?

But we certainly did learn from our mistakes and from the terrible things that happened.

I don't get why so many americans seem to be in constant fear of tyranny. We live in the 21st century not in the 18th.

Don't you trust your government at all? You think they are going to deport you to working camps the second you give your private guns away?

Some Americans seem a little egoistic to be honest, at least from the european perspective.
It's the same thing with taxes. They don't want more taxes cause they're afraid they will have less money for themselves to spend on consumer goods. But they don't see that a little higher taxes could already change a lot of things that would actually be good for EVERYBODY such as better infrastructure (seriously, most of the american infrastructure is in a bad condition) and education.

Did you though? If it were not for American bombs, satellites, and yes guns would Europe have had the stomach or the capability to intervene in the Balkans as late as the 1990s?

No.

21st century has tyranny in Afghanistan even with the presence of a sizable US force, North Korea, Syria and many other parts of the ME, large portions of Africa, oh BTW why is it that the ruling elite in South Africa want to disarm the white minority?

The issue with taxes is so MUCH is wasted on programs that are demonstrably bad and counterproductive that exist SOLELY to buy votes. It's not that Americans are against ideas that work it's we are not blinded by statism.

An all-powerful American state/government is not good for America nor would it be good for the world. Be careful for what you wish for: an American government with no domestic restraints or hedges would be a scary thing.

America is different from Western Europe.
-
It is more diverse, there is always a undercurrent that things can explode at any moment, from looting after a natural disaster to race riots in LA. These things (natural disasters, explosive riots, constantly happening) are a part of the American psyche.
-
For a European I understand that the perception that relative stability in Europe is every where, but once you leave your Ivory tower you will find that is not the case.
-
I do not own a gun, neither do people I know, but there is always the peace of mind knowing that in the worst case you could.

Yeah, those pesky World Wars, the Bosnian War, and the Iron Curtain are nothing compared to that time a bunch of people rioted in a city several states away from me and I watched it on TV.
On behalf of all Americans, I apologize. Idiocy and narcissism are a cottage industry here.

Europeans are truly stupid arent you?
-
I could mention all the wars the US has also been through, but since this is a social stability issue, related to extremism, I specifically mention and point that out.
-
come back when your IQ and reading comprehension increases.

Hyun that's "increase". Not "increases". But you haven't even chosen the right word anyway.... Guys like you are a plague to these comment boards and dumb them down. Sigh. Keep up the good work ThomasMores.

Are you being ironic when you criticize my reading comprehension? For it would be hard for an astute reader to miss the fact that I am American - I could hardly apologize on behalf of Americans if I were not.

In the last century, how many of those wars were fought on U.S. soil? To say we've "been through" them is a real stretch. Of course, if you were half the sociologist you imagine yourself to be, you'd realize that property and violent crime besides homicide are more prevalent in Europe than America, and your ideas about "social stability" are probably more informed by the cheesy dramas and sensationalist nightly news you watch on TV than any semblance of reality.

But weak, ill-informed arguments are what comment boards like this are all about. What I really object to is your impressive arrogance in talking down to all Europeans - and I'd be surprised if you've ever been the way you talk about it! It's no wonder that arrogant is the first word most foreigners use to describe us, it just makes me sad that it so often is true, and that people like you perpetuate it.

Have a look what he wrote on my comment. He told me Switzerland. I have been able to live in the two continents we are talking about and I love them both but the Europeans have a longer history than America and they got it right with their gun laws. They changed them over time as situations change. We all agree this massacres and all others are deplorable. But introducing gun laws would actually do something to stop that. I am sick of hearing one side - mostly republicans deplore the act but do nothing to change it.

Just on your point of not owning a gun and not knowing anyone who owns a gun - how do you indulge yourself so much. YOU CLEARLY MUST KNOW SOMEONE WHO OWNS A GUN. THERE ARE 300 million of them in your country - more than your populace - once again - common sense sense and logic reprimand you here once again. Just because you are naive does not mean that we must follow or indulge such naivety.

Yes, it could have.
For instance, the young man might have used a knife. If he had, he would have had to stab a child, withdraw the blade, perhaps stab again. Or, if he had been trained in the deadly use of a knife, he would have known how to kill effectively with one cut every time, but then, of course, he would have had to be trained. This young man doesn't seem like the "getting trained" type, so far anyway. And in the mean time, his other victims would have had to wait around for their turn. Possible? I suppose so... let's give you the benefit of the doubt.
But see, here's the things about guns, just in case it didn't occur to you… the killer need to do none of that. Nope. He just pointed a metal object at the kids and adults, make a very slight and unskilled movement of his index finger, and victims became mortally wounded in a second - faster, if we're being precise, and what the heck, let's be precise. Training needed? None needed; even you could probably do it. Victims fleeing while they away becoming the next? Lot less time.
So… see the difference?

Hyun you need some logic buddy. Why are you talking about bombs now? What are you afraid of?

You guys are worried about tyranny and are saying the states could be like Syria? That's crazy talk. You have a stable country for so many decades. You also have the most potent military in the world that completely out spends everyone.

If you want to start talking about the Middle East I hope you have an idea of the history and turmoil that exist there. But more to the point - no it has nothing to do with this issue - nor do bombs. Bring it back to the issue at hand - 27 people died from one dude and a couple of guns in your country. Do something constructive about it. Less guns less possibilities of this happening.

Well if you're so smart you should also know, that those bombings were done by terrorists, by ORGANIZED crime. They planned those bombings precisely and were careful not to get caught.

I don't think that the young man in this current case, had the skills and the patience to build a bomb, I guess it was a realtively spontaneous act.

Right now it's only speculation, but it's said that he had a fight with teachers and staff of that school days before the shooting (3 of 4 people whom he had a fight with, are now dead).
Then he wanted to buy a gun but due to Connecticuts relatively strict gun laws (compared to other US states), he would have had to wait I think 14 days or something like that. He didn't want that, so he just drove home and took his mom's guns which were easily accesible.

So again, the easy access to guns might have played a big role in this case.
Of course we don't know what he would have done in a situation with more gun control and no right for private gun ownership, but I think it's worth a try. Cause it can't go on like this anymore in America.

Your comment on people not being able to identify tyranny is simply incorrect. Have you not paid attention to what is going on in the middle east, with its multiple revolutions? Are the Syrians unable to identify tyranny?

Further, you ignore the fact that most gun deaths in the US are related to drug violence. The failed, so-called war on drugs is the cause of most gun violence in the US.

And lastly - and this may cause you to fall from your high horse - It was reported , just a few years ago - that the UK was the violent crime capital of Europe, with rates even worse than the USA.

2)it is in one of the more right of centre UK newspapers and if you look at the tone is aimed as an inditement of the then left of centre government hence playing somewhat loosely with the facts

3) The comparison of 'violent' crime is difficult for a few reasons first the recording varies massively from country to country. To give an example Sweeden is listed as the only country in the EU that is more violent - now it would require someone of extraordinary bias to believe that Sweeden is actually more violent than the UK or US. The reason for the figures is that every instance of a crime is classed as an individual crime in Sweeden so for example if a child says they were molested by a parent daily for three years that is classed as 900+ crimes. In the U.S it would be classed as one (the logic is 1 offender carrying out 1 crime as opposed to act). The UK largely follows the same methodology in regard of many violent crimes and also uses a much wider definition for official 'violent' acts. The report actually covers this point in it's bottom paragraphs.

""Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. “ ""

It's also important to note that there is a massive difference between violent crime and gun deaths which should not be grouped together as though interchangeable. Gun deaths as a result of violence can be directly compared as a dead person is a dead person in every country and for 08/09 which your article refers to the UK had 39 the US had more than 9,000 a fairly stark difference.

However, I certainly agree that it is very important to consider how many of those were drug related. The problem of gun crime is not exclusively drug related but the two cannot be looked at in isolation and a more successful counter-drugs policy would have a massive impact on gun deaths. Something that people should remember before grouping 'gun violence' in one homogenous pile to be simply solved by banning weapons.

Infuriating because kurto67 just destroyed your argument? Infuriating because when you googled for articles about high violence rates in Europe it took you ages to find one that agreed with your prejudice, and you've only just realised it's a biased report?

Crime in most stable countries rises and falls along with the economy. That's just human nature. The difference is what form these crimes take. Yes, some knife crime in Europe would probably be gun crime if guns were more easily available. But they're not ...

We already have a ban in cocain a other drugs, how is that working out? How about the ban on drinking and driving? Just what good is a law if only law abiding citizens ar going to abide them? If our Government can not keep drugs out of America, what justification do the law makers have for believing that all they have to do is ban guns and the killing will stop? Why is it that Great Britain has a ban on ALL guns but the crime rate in Great Britain is higher than the US? Let's go back to the days of the cave man to find out if a gun band would do the trick. If one cave man wanted to kill another cave man, do you think he could do it? Of course he could. Why is everyone looking at this with a microscope, can you not stand back to see the bigger picture? Who are the people in Hollywood making vilent movies and tv shows? Who are the people making vilent video games? Is it the same people that make and disribute porn, the answer is yes. Let's say that there are 100 people living in a town and 2 of the people were purposly trying to desincatizing and demoraling the other 98 people with there porn and vilent books and other forms of media, would not the 98 good people run the 2 bad people out of town for at least the sake of the children? A little more that 2000 years ago a man said to the good people around him, If good men do nothing, evil will prevail. I say if you do nothing than you are just part of the problem. If you don't want to be part of the problem, please stop complaining and help fix it.

You are right, I don't know why, but I was thinking that Jesus said it,I just knew it was mention in the bible. I just looked it up and found it in Genesis, God said it to Cain. I also looked up Edmund Burke. Must say that I like his quote in the way it is frased, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

I distintincly recall an articlel published in The Economist perhaps a couple of years after the near total gun ban enacted in the UK following Dunblane. It noted that since guns had been virtually banned, violent crime in the UK had increased dramatically, such the UK surpassed the US in per capita violent crime rates in all categories except murder and rape. It also noted that patterns of criminal behavior had changed: instead of breaking into a bome at 3 AM when everlyone was asleep, criminals would kick in the door at dinner time, confident that their victims would be unarmed and unable to resist.
Studies in the US have demonstrated increasing numbers of permits to carry handguns in numerous states correlates with a decrease in crime in those states, indicating thet criminals are rational, in that they don't wish to be shot while plying their trade.
As a US citizen who regards the right to self-defense as absolute, I find in unfathomable that an entire nation such as the UK could adopt a view that the individual citizen has no right of self defense and must rely on upon the police to protect individuals. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Ignoring the fact that it is in the Daily Mail I'd love to see an analysis of the time of day (or rather night) these attacks took place. To quote your original mail 'instead of breaking into a bome at 3 AM when everlyone was asleep, criminals would kick in the door at dinner time'

Here's a link to another of your papers. Perhaps you may regard it as more reliable. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Why does anyone think that passing (as opposed to enforcing) more laws will affect criminal behavior?

Hey Old cranky dude - fwi - half the deaths every year related to guns are accident in the States. Sorry space cowboy, see you next time.
Also - why don't we all just live in the jungle with Bazou? Why even have laws? What is the point of a criminal code when you have a gun and god at your back? Should we go back two hundred years with you?

Also - your stats are all wrong man.
Anyway - I love most Americans even the cowboys - like you - your big cars and your big guns - it's like tossing a coin - 50/50 you get it right through luck or it just turns back on you. Have the foresight and lay down some laws which will address the problem - you all got too many guns.
Anyway - the majority in your country are very capable and hard working good natured people - start to listen to them a bit more.